My speech for son's Bar Mitzva Be a Dragon Rider

What a night, to be with all of you to celebrate our delightful Tuvia’s Bar Mitzvah.

King David told his 12-year-old son, Solomon, “I am going the way of all the land, to die, and you should be strong and be a man[i]”.

What kind of man should you be?

You should follow the example of the men you were named after.

Moshe Tuvia Stark, your great-grandfather who was so loved that every time his grandchildren mentioned his name, their whole faces lit up with pleasure.

My wife Shoshie and I, grandparents, and teachers all get great pleasure from you. This is no small matter, as we are taught: “Every person in whom people’s spirit find pleasure, God is pleased with, but anyone that people are not pleased with, God is also not pleased with[ii]”.

Mr. Stark was an example of the teaching that; “In a place where there are no men, step up and be a man[iii]”. He was ‘the man’ who took responsibility for the synagogue, two schools, meals for those in need, the mikveh, and the burial society.

You are also named after your great, great grandfather, Dr. Armin, Yirmiyahu Blau. A Torah scholar and a teacher. One of his students wrote about him. “His depth of knowledge of German culture and his artistic interests fascinated us and called on us to follow him.  “Nobody instructed us better in the noble art of being human.[iv]”

Great shoes to fill, but you are already on your way to living up to their examples, thanks to the balanced education you get at your school, Kesser Torah. But, as Reb Zushe said, it is not our task to be a copy of anyone else. Certainly, not strong, and brutal like Samson[v]. Instead, we must strive to be the best version of ourselves[vi].

So, I return to the question of what kind of man you will become?

I invite you to consider being the kind of man represented by a fictional, brave, young man, wise beyond his years.

I refer to the character called Hiccup, a young dragon rider[vii].

It is written: “who is strong, one who conquers his own inclination”[viii].

The kind of man you must be, is one who is able to tame the beast inside of you.

According to Hasidic teachings, the meaning of the sacrifices offered up in the temple, is to offer up the animals inside of us.

The ox represents the aggressive part of us[ix], that reacts harshly when provoked or irritated, when we feel that the other person is not being reasonable and deserves a harsh reaction.

It is ok to be assertive, but we must be calm and restrained.

The wrong kind of ox is represented by many of the 1980s New York City cops I remember who were in the habit of yelling insults at people who made a traffic mistake.

 On the other hand, the harnessed ox is exemplified by the detective who stopped at a traffic light, next to a car full of Yeshiva students including me on Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn. He flashed a badge and in a very calm, soft voice told the driver “I have been watching your driving”, he listed all the things the driver did wrong. Then he said: “I am not a cop, I am not going to give you a ticket. You keep driving like this and I will take you into the station”. The driving dramatically improved. 

But we also sacrifice sheep. This represents pleasure-seeking. A gentle sheep that does nothing but eat grass play on the computer and endlessly dribble a basketball.

Here is the odd thing about pleasure. In moderation, pleasure is good. All the sacrifices had to include salt[x] which adds flavour to food[xi]. I am proud of your basketball ability. 

But we must not be driven by seeking pleasure. We must be in control.

The Torah states that yeast or honey was generally not allowed to be part of the sacrifices[xii]. We must not be motivated by the drive for pleasure represented by honey[xiii], but do what is right, because it is right[xiv].

The animal soul we have inside is wild and loves his pleasure. It can be incredibly productive and delightful which is great. Its passion can help us fly high and accomplish things we might never have imagined possible, but this only works if we direct it.

Tuvia, welcome to the dragon riders, young man.

 

---

[i] Kings I 2:2

[ii] Pirkey Avot 3:10

[iii] Pirkey Avot 2:5

[iv] Wolfsberg, Dr. O, Armin Published in Zion, vol 9, no. 3, pp. 13-14. July 1937. Berlin. Translated from German to English by his daughter Rivka (Jenny) Marmorstein.http://www.geni.com/people/R-Dr-Armin-%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95-Blau/353035782440006443

[v] Lyrics to the 8^th Day song

[vi] https://jewishjournal.com/commentary/blogs/336309/a-moment-in-time-why-were-you-not-more-like-zusia/

[vii] the main protagonist of the DreamWorks’ animated How to Train Your Dragon

[viii] Pirkey Avot 4:1

[ix] Likutei Torah, Vayikra

[x] Leviticus 2:13

[xi] Baal Shem Tov on the Torah

[xii] Leviticus 2:11

[xiii] Sefer Hachinuch 117, referred to as “self-oriented satisfaction a person feels in his divine service – based on Ohr Hatorah and Yahel Or in The Siddur Illuminated with Chassidus, p. 39, Kehot publications

[xiv] Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of repentance 1:3

Changing Nature of Jewish Religious Practice in Australia and the Importance of Interfaith Dialogue

An edited version of a talk to the ISRA Studies of Religion Conference in Sydney 10 March 2023

In response to the Studies of Religion Syllabus focus on the changing pattern of religious observance in Australia post-1945, I will discuss one change - the prevalence of Hasidic Rabbis in orthodox synagogues in Sydney. I will also address the importance of Interfaith dialogue.

I begin with a bit of scripture,

Moses came down from Mount Sinai with the two tablets, he was not aware that the skin of his face was radiant… the Israelites were afraid to approach him (Exodus 34:29-30).

The phenomenon is explained by the Midrash[i]. Moses worked closely with God to create the second set of tablets after he broke the first set in response to the worship of the golden calf. Moses held one side of the tablets in his hand – symbolic of the parts of the Torah humans could understand, while the Divine Presence held the other edge – symbolic of the parts of the Torah that only God understands[ii], and in between the two parts was something of profound mystery. It was from this mystery that rays of light appeared on Moses’ face.  

I, a Rabbi from Brooklyn, New York, read this passage while preparing my lesson for a Hasidic-led Synagogue based on the North Shore of Sydney. The congregation I will deliver this lesson to are not Hasidic Jews, but choose to attend the lessons of a Hasidic Rabbi. 

Senior Dayan (Judge) of the Sydney Beth Din 
(Religious court), Rabbi Yehoram Ulman

This reflects a peculiar development of Jewish practice since 1945. Instead of mainstream orthodox Jews being led by Rabbis of the same inclination, they are mostly led by Hasidic Rabbis. In terms familiar to Studies of Religion teachers, many of these Rabbis are less in the mode of Maimonides and his rationalist approach - that would interpret the Torah’s story about a talking donkey as a prophetic vision - and more in the mystical mode of the Baal Shem Tov. This change that has occurred in orthodox Jewish life in Australia is linked to the rise of secularism.

 Australian Jews are generally full participants in Australian culture, and the general trends you will see in the census also hold true for Jews. Like the census data that tell us that more than a third of Australians selected no religion, around 30% of respondents of the Gen17 Australian Jewish Population Survey cited a ‘secular’ outlook or lifestyle[iii].

The trend away from religious observance has been a global one. It prompted a response from the Chabad Hasidic movement to send Rabbis from New York to all corners of the world to call Jews back to religious belief, study, and practice. 

This development is one change in one stream of one faith community in Australia, and it is important not to overstate its significance, even within the Jewish faith. Hasidic Rabbis will often teach from mainstream orthodox perspectives.  Adherence to religious requirements is still mixed, despite the best efforts of the Hasidic Rabbis. 29% of survey respondents reported that only kosher meat was bought for their homes and 14% attend synagogue once or more per week.

Despite the Hasidic background of many Rabbis in Sydney, this has not inhibited interfaith work. Labels can often be misleading. An example of this is my good friend, Imam Farhan Khalil, who comes from a Salafi school of Islam and is one of the most passionate advocates of interfaith I know. 

The interfaith work done by the Together For Humanity Foundation began in a Chabad Hasidic Synagogue in 2002. It was a collaboration between a Hasidic Rabbi, Christians and Muslims spreading a message of goodwill between people of different faiths. One of the early events was covering NSW Parliament with messages from students in response to the visits by the Christian, Jewish and Muslim teams to schools.

During the Sydney siege, Father Patrick McInerny and I said prayers on the steps of Lakemba Mosque alongside Sheikh Wesam Charkawi. This was part of an effort to show interfaith solidarity. It was widely reported in the media, and was part of the spirit of goodwill at the time that prevented that terrible event eroding social cohesion in our city.

There is a lot of effort being put into interfaith. Studies of Religion is strong in NSW, with an active Facebook page with over 1600 members.

School children from different cultures come together in interfaith encounters. These are run by Catholic Mission, the NSW Jewish Board of Deputies and Together For Humanity, to name a few.

An Independent evaluation of Together For Humanity’s work by Western Sydney University found that there was a significant impact from these activities. The research found that programs are effective in assisting students to challenge stereotypes and alleviate their fears. These programs also empower students to deal with prejudice and discrimination and promote the acquisition of empathy, mutual acceptance and belonging. [iv]

Some would argue that if the criteria for evaluating the importance of interfaith dialogue is measured by the number of participants, then it is irrelevant to most Australians and therefore unimportant.

On the other hand, I would argue that the criteria should be based on the need for it, in which case, it is very important.  

To return to the scriptural idea I began with. Some people are drawn to a ‘golden calf’ type of religion. Concrete, solid and uncomplicated. Interfaith work, however, can be linked to the mystery of ’the middle section of the tablets‘. Its mystery involves the complexity of holding in tension; truth claims on one hand, and leaving space and having respect for those who believe and practice differently.

  

[i] Midrash Rabba, Exodus, 47:11

[ii] Etz Yosef on Midrash Rabba, Exodus, 47:11

[iii] https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/1531791/gen17-initial-findings-report-online-version-final-22_3.pdf

[iv] Gale, F., Edenborough, M., Boccanfuso, E., Hawkins, M., & Sell, C. (2019), Western Sydney University, Australia. Promoting intercultural

understanding, connectedness and belonging: An independent qualitative evaluation of Together For Humanity programs. 

Selling Young Daughters into Servitude and Marriage in the Torah

Long after I closed the book the words played on my mind. I read a passage in the Torah about the case of a man who sells his daughter as a child to be a maidservant. When the girl matured, she would be expected to marry her master, marry her master’s son, failing either of these options s

he would go free[i]. This was disturbing enough, but a 13th-century commentary by Rabbi Yitzchak Ben Araama added some colour to this. He wrote that the father could go ahead with such a sale even if it is to a “repulsive man, stricken with leprosy, and the daughter is screaming there is no justice [in the world], there is no Judge[ii]”- an allusion to God, in whom she can no longer believe after what has been done to her.

This disturbing law, and passage really got my attention. So, I did two things, I started to read what I could in my library and what I could find online and I put a call out on Facebook to see if anyone else could shed light on this. Both strategies bore fruit.

We must first ask the question; is this scenario one the Torah condoned or a practice the Torah tolerated but condemned and restricted. It would appear to be the latter.

The Torah stated that if this arrangement did not transition into a fully-fledged marriage – with all the rights of a wife as required by the Torah- then the girl must be set free. She cannot be sold again, after ‘he had betrayed her[iii]’. According to one interpretation, this is referring to the father who betrayed his daughter by selling her in the first place[iv]. While it is jarring to us that the Torah does not forbid the practice outright, it does appear to condemn it.

The Torah does not say anything about requiring consent from the girl – who as a child could not meaningfully consent anyway. However, the written Torah is meant to be read together with the oral tradition to be understood[v]. A friend[vi] on Facebook directed me to the work of Maimonides on Jewish law, which requires the girl’s consent for marriage when she becomes mature[vii]. Another commentator adds that if the father is a “kosher’-proper person the sale should not go ahead in the first place without the daughter’s agreement[viii]. 

Maimonides – based on the Talmud[ix] - also stipulated that a father is only permitted to sell his daughter if he became so poor that he has absolutely nothing, he does not even own the garment he is wearing[x]. The context of this practice is unimaginable poverty in an economic reality that is very different from ours[xi]. It has been argued that in such a context it was merciful for a girl to escape unbearable poverty and become a ‘lady’ in a more affluent home[xii].

All of this needs to be viewed within the larger context of Judaism that contains insistent messages about the obligations of the strong toward the week [xiii].

None of this sits comfortably with me. The idea that the Torah would tolerate such a terrible deed still disturbs me. However, with further study, I recognize that there is more nuance than first meets the eye. I hope that as people with different beliefs and backgrounds meet each other and are confronted with ancient texts we respond with curiosity and not knee-jerk condemnation.

 

Thank you to Rabbis Ben Elton, Chayim Lando, Eli Cohen and Shimon Eddi and many others for your help

---

[i] Exodus 21:7-11

[ii] Yitzchak, Ben Arama, - (c. 1420 – 1494) Spain, in Akeidat Yitzchak, on book of Leviticus, gate 67, p.119, it is beyond the scope of this short post but it must be pointed out that this passage in gate 67 is in the context of making a rhetorical point in the context of a discussion of the Rosh Hashana liturgy. Yitzchak, Ben Arama takes a very different approach in Exodus gate 46, when he is focused on this law directly where he emphasises mercy and says nothing or repulsive men and distraught young girls  

[iii] Exodus 21:8

[iv] Rashi on verse 8, BVigdo Bah, based on the Talmud Kiddushin 18b, Seforno

[v] See Aaronson, E,  האם-זה-מוסרי-שאדם-ימכור-את-ביתו-לאמה/ https://www.elami-elatzmi.co.il/האם-זה-מוסרי-שאדם-ימכור-את-ביתו-לאמה/

[vi] Rabbi Shimon Eddi

[vii] Maimonides, Yad Hachazaka, Hilchot Avadim, 4:8

[viii] Seforno on 21:7

[ix] Kiddushin 20a

[x] Maimonides, Yad Hachazaka, Hilchot Avadim, 4:2

[xi] See also Tosafot, Kiddushin 41a, Dibur Hamatchil Asur

[xii] Sefer Hachinuch mitzva 43

[xiii] Exodus 22:22 is just one example, Isaiah 58 is another among many